Ravindra Singh, J.@mdashHeard Sri R.B. Saxena learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.G.A.
2. This petition is filed against the order dated 28.7 2004 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Chhata, district Mathura, whereby the protest
petition filed by the petitioner was rejected and the final report submitted by the I.O. was accepted and the order dated 2.2.2005 passed by the
learned Sessions Judge, Mathura in Criminal Revision No. 692 of 2004, whereby the revision filed by the petitioner was dismissed.
3. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner moved an application u/s 156(3) Cr. P. C, which was allowed by the
Judicial Magistrate, Chhata, Mathura. In pursuance of that order the F.I.R. was lodged and the matter was investigated by the police. Thereafter,
the I.O. submitted final report. The petitioner filed protest petition against that final report. After considering the police report the learned
Magistrate came to conclusion that the fair investigation was not done so the learned Magistrate passed the order for doing further investigation,
but the I.O. again submitted final report, which was accepted by the learned Magistrate on 28.7.2004 and the protest petition filed by the
petitioner was rejected.
4. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the impugned order dated 28.7.2004 is illegal, because if the learned Magistrate
was not satisfied on the police report, in such circumstances the protest petition filed by the petitioner would have been treated as a complaint but
the learned Magistrate did not treat the protest pention as a complaint, so he passed illegal order. The learned Sessions Judge also did not consider
the manifest error committed by the learned Magistrate and dismissed the revision filed by the petitioner.
5. It is opposed by the learned A.G.A. by submitting that there is no illegality or irregularity in the impugned orders because both the orders are
well reasoned.
6. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case and the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner it appears that the matter
was investigated and the final report was submitted. Against that final report the protest petition was filed by the petitioner after considering the
same, but the learned Magistrate passed the order for doing further investigation. Again after doing further investigation the final report was
submitted, which was accepted by the learned Magistrate and protest petition filed by the petitioner was rejected. In such circumstances it. was
not proper for the learned Magistrate to reject the protest petition because the investigation was not fair enough. The protest petition filed by the
petitioner would have been treated as a complaint, so the impugned order dated 28.7.2004 rejecting the protest petition is set aside.
Consequently, the order dated 2.2.2005 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Mathura in respect of rejection of the protest petition, is set aside
and the learned Judicial Magistrate, Chhata, Mathura is directed to treat the protest petition filed by the petitioner as a complaint and to proceed
further as a complaint case in accordance with the provision of law.
7. With this observation the petition is finally disposed of.